Comments on: Idiot…

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:04:04 +0000

Finding oneself in disagreement with Andrew Coyne is usually a great source of confidence.

By: lrC

lrC — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:46:28 +0000

>IrC, let us propose a thought experiment. For fun, let’s suppose that property rights were abolished. Now, do you think that this would have an immediately apparent, adverse, effect on society?

The question wasn’t intended to be whether you could predict adverse effects of any change you selected; the question was whether you could predict adverse effects of any particular idea handed to you.

By: DCardno

DCardno — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:13:58 +0000

“Which all of the Honourable members know which makes the entire process a grand waste of time…”

As distinct from all the valuable crap they would otherwise be doing? At least if they are discussing this they are not debating a tax increase or a new set of Kyoto requirements.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:03:55 +0000

Thought I’d point out that, at least as far as whether or not this is a case of social engineering, Andrew Coyne seems to be on my side, as he writes in today’s NP “Rewriting the marriage laws to include homosexual unions is a radical social experiment,”.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:36:45 +0000

Reinterpretting the constitution to include protections based upon sexual orientation, when such protection was SPECIFICALLY excluded by the framers, isn’t social engineering.

Tom: the Canadian Charter is an unclosed set of protected rights. There were no “framers” and no limit to what can be found as an analogous right to be protected against discrimination under section 15. We have a living tree constitution in Canada, not a founding fathers model.

I think the only link between gay rights and Quebec as a nation is their lasting call to those who would judge and discriminate against them.

By: EMG

EMG — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:19:24 +0000

RE. “Hill’s idiocy is refuted by the simple fact that we have had gay marriage for a year and our society and nation remain.”

Timely that you should use that word nation. A fiddly argument perhaps, but it seems to me that a case might be made for a connection between the redefinition of marriage and the government’s recent undertaking with regards to Québec.

By: jay

jay — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:11:13 +0000

IrC, let us propose a thought experiment. For fun, let’s suppose that property rights were abolished. Now, do you think that this would have an immediately apparent, adverse, effect on society? I do and i think it would be obvious pretty immediately. Hill wants to “preserve our society and nation”. From what? From a bit of bureaucratic change which is in conformity with the constitution.

Tom, who are these “framers” you are talking about? A bunch of Premiers and the PM? Who managed not to expressly include gay people. (Having read the document a couple of times I note that there is no line in it that says, “Equality rights shall not be extended to gay and lesbian people” nor any words to that effect.)

There is, in fact, nothing to see here folks. Gay people have become married gay people: society and the nation remain intact. (And, by the way, what did you think would happen? I have always wondered what the devil the anti-gay marriage folks thought would change. So do tell.)

Dcardno, its a waste of time simply because Harper has stated he is unwilling to take the “notwithstanding” route no matter how the vote goes. Which means nothing will change. Which all of the Honourable members know which makes the entire process a grand waste of time.

By: lrC

lrC — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:01:05 +0000

SSM probably won’t threaten the society and nation, but why do you presume to be capable of recognizing corrosive and negative influences of any particular social or political evolution? My general instinct is to doubt that we can recognize any adverse trend before it is too late to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:55:41 +0000

Riiiiight. Reinterpretting the constitution to include protections based upon sexual orientation, when such protection was SPECIFICALLY excluded by the framers, isn’t social engineering. Redefining a social standard that has been in place for, oh I don’t know, a few thousand years or so, isn’t social engineering. And clearly, any possible impacts to society of doing so would be perfectly evident within one year. Impeccable reasoning Jay, I don’t know why anyone bothers to argue against it. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Except, what if there is? What if the societal evolution that molded marriage, over thousands of years, into the institution that we had before the politicians decided they could do better, actually did provide the best possible outcomes for society? What if it actually takes LONGER THAN ONE WHOLE YEAR for the negative impacts to be felt? Seems like the costs just MIGHT be pretty high. Could be an awfully costly price to pay for yours and others failure to imagine. But hey, no reason not to vilify those of us who would rather a bit more caution when it comes to redefining our social norms (what some would even call “social engineering”, but not me, I’ve learned my lesson.)

By: DCardno

DCardno — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:51:32 +0000

Jay, when the ssm issue was last addressed (or more accurately, ducked) by Parliament the Liberal Party line was that it was “too divisive” to appeal any of the court findings that created a right to ssm. This, despite the majority resolution less than six year beofre that affirmed the “traditional definition” of marriage and required Parliament to take all steps to defend same. Similarly, it was “too divisive” to discuss the issue or to allow MPs to vote as they wished - the Liberals required cabinet solidarity, and both the Dippers and the Bloc whipped their caucus, with the Dippers going so far as to dismiss the one MP who decided she couldn’t vote for the bill in good conscience.

I have no particular problem with ssm, although I would prefer a civil-union approach for all ‘formal’ relationships with the religious ceremony (or lack thereof) left to the participants - but I can live with the situation as it is now. There are people, though, who would like to see the issue debated with MPs free to vote as they are directed by their conscience - or by how their constituents feel on the matter, depending on the MP. Until that occurs, the ssm bill remains to the social conservatives what repatriation of the Constitution is to the separatists: an illegitimate (in their view) exercise that they never had the opportunity to give or withhold consent to. Personally, I hope the issue is reopened, MPs are allowed a free vote, and the measure fails - it puts a stop to the debate, and obliges those opposed to the process (or who claim to be opposed to the process) to either shut up, or admit that they will always oppose such a bill on the merits, rather than on the process. This (obviously) doesn’t mean that I agree with ANY of Grant Hill’s arguments - but he has come to the right conclusion despite himself.